Reflections on Truth, Systems and Reality.

[J. Paul Everett]

Discussion on Truth, OSE’s, Godel, Reality Models

What is “Truth” depends largely on one’s model of reality, I think.  One’s
model of reality is generally built on the cultural frame one is raised in as
well as one’s personal experiences of what works and what doesn’t work, or
work well enough.  If this is ‘true’, then ‘truth’ is contextual, both as
to time and geography (space).  (One need only remember Galileo having to
recant his hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun in order to save
his life to see how powerful organizational ‘truth’ can be in its ‘current
reality’.)

Further, I think that reality dictates to me, I do not dictate to reality.
Our task, therefore, is to discover what works, in reality (more on this in a
moment).

Godel’s Theorem states that “For any system of integer arithmetic, a
proposition can be put that can be neither proved or disproved within the
system.”  Godel’s Theorem is based on paradox, which is a statement that
makes a statement about itself.  It is itself, it’s own ‘box’.  By Godelian
reasoning, therefore, every model of reality is necessarily inconsistent or
incomplete or both.  (I am indebted to an article by Prof. Robert Hall in the
second quarter 2001 Target magazine of the Association for Manufacturing
Excellence for provoking and aiding the discussion in this and part of the
following paragraph.)

And, since there is no way a human can comprehend the whole universe, we all
live in a box bounded by our observation, learning and experience---which may
become our truth.  The danger is, of course, if it becomes “The Truth”.

My perception of Open Space Technology, itself a model of reality, is that it
is a system/process for helping people express themselves in a
self-organizing way and ‘think outside the box’---the box often being
corporate or organizational rules, regulations, culture, ‘the way we do
things around here’---and every organized system has these, even OST.  Godel
says we can’t self-reference OST in evaluating OST as a system.  We have to
begin to think from the outside in----a difficult prospect if we get caught
up in truth.

Further, according to discussions held here, there have been Open Space
Events (OSE’s) that were, in military parlance, “limited successes”.  Maybe
even failures.  In essence, they didn’t work well enough to meet the needs of
the situation---the reality in which they occurred.  This makes one very
tentative in proclaiming a truth about any given system, even OST.

However, there are some questions we might choose to ask ourselves that may
enhance the chances of a “successful” event.  I say "may", because chaos is
also part of our reality and we never can be sure we have it in a box.  We
have already had several valuable contributions from people’s experiences
that speak to elements of these questions.

1.  What are the minimum necessary preconditions and context needed to enable
an OSE to “work”?

2.  What might we define as an OSE that “works”?  (Is people going away
feeling good about the event enough?  Or, is a successful OSE one that has
needed outcomes as defined by the client system?)

3.  Is a successful OSE, like truth, contextual?

4.  Should a successful OSE, at a minimum, create meaning?  That is, make a
difference in its own context?  Should these differences be observable,
concrete, that on which action can be taken?  Or, is an inner change
sufficient?  Is there a holy grail of an OSE?

Interesting thread of discussion, thank you to all those who are contributing
from their own reality which has their truths embedded in it. :)

Sincerely,

J. Paul Everett, Consultant
World Class Performance
JPESeeker at aol.com

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html